xwing_n_it

Sexiest spaceship ever. So glad they brought it back for the new trilogy and stuffed an awesome character into it.

There has been talk of simplifying the tax code for a long time. Has it ever, in your memory, actually happened? Has the legislature ever passed a bill that significantly reduced the complexity of the tax code?

Upvoted because you intelligently articulate the best argument against an amendment -- not because I agree with it.

I support an amendment, but I'm not unconcerned about this issue. We certainly don't want to put ultimate power about who says what about which candidate in the hands of government. That's the antithesis of the First Amendment. I lean towards the idea of permitting individual (non-corporate) spending so long as that spending is done directly (not through shady advocacy groups) and is publicly disclosed. Being the "Candidate from the Kochs" would be a death sentence in many markets.

And we definitely need an amendment limiting corporate political spending to zero.

But one aspect of this that never gets talked about is that money used for speech tends to push out other speech. This is changing thanks to the Internet, but millions will only see a message if it appears during prime time TV, on a giant billboard or in a very popular magazine or newspaper. Those are all limited-bandwidth media in terms of how many messages can get through. If candidate X buys up all the prime time TV time (or half) within a market it limits how much is available to others. It's like me bringing a bigger megaphone to the town square to drown out other voices. Ensuring fair access to the public is a valid governmental function.

If a day comes when nearly everyone is getting their information from the Internet this could change, but for now we need to ensure that there is some limit to how much "bandwidth" in traditional media you can buy up.

As a progressive the only way I would support a flat tax is if it were created via a constitutional amendment that said the following (but in actual legalese):

1. Any tax on income must cover all income the same. No different rates for investment vs. employment income or different amounts of income.

2. There can be no loopholes or exceptions to these rates except for a set limit below which no tax is owed. So for example the first $15,000 could be tax free.

3. This is the only tax that can be taken against income. This would mean Social Security and Medicare would no longer be funded just by workers.

The reason I could go for such a system is that nobody could really complain it wasn't fair. It's very simple. And under this system the wealthy would pay significantly more than they do now. And since it's an amendment Congress couldn't immediately start poking holes in it for their big donors -- which is exactly what would happen the day after a flat tax was passed by legislation alone.

Unfortunately for Mr. Gregory, it would also mean a much smaller IRS.

Two awesome characters!